|
Author
|
|
Topic: Fundy is GONE!! |  |
|
SilverDragon Prince SilverDragon141@aol.com Apr 2000
|
 |
posted May 05, 2001 22:07
|
 |
 |  |
According to Computer Gaming World magazine, Fundamentalism will not be in Civ III. I call this a blessing, because it was extremely unrealistic. You're supposed to be an evil dictator, and the people are all happy. Also, the rediculous amount of gold you earn is messed up, because religious dictatorships are always poor.------------------ - SilverDragon, scourge of the western skies Email me at SilverDragon141@aol.com |
ancient Chieftain Rochester, N.Y. (worst place in the world) May 2001
|
 |
posted May 05, 2001 22:12
 |
 |
 |  |
yep she was a *****y unrealalistic govt. but god bless her, flags shall be at half-mast. |
Alexander's Horse Emperor The former OT poster known as horse b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 02:59
|
 |
 |  |
I am still in mourning over this news  ------------------ Founder, Dear Leader and Great Helmsman of PROT -the People's Republic Off Topic www.delphi.com/prot1 |
Mister Pleasant Chieftain New Orleans Jan 2001
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 04:14
|
 |
 |  |
Fundamentalism merely needed to be balanced. And why shouldn't it be included? There are several fundamentalist nations in the real world. Not to mention several political groups in the USofA that would like nothing more than to burn the Bill of Rights and institute an Evangelical Southern Baptist Fundamentalist state.My question is will anything replace it. If Firaxis thinks democracy, republic, monarchy, communism, despotism are enough they are wrong. CTP even had Theocracy and Facism (sp?). Not to mention some of there "future governments" weren't too far off the mark. Isn't the Corporate Republic what Seattle and Quebec were about? Aren't libertarians often ranting about the Technocracy? Come on, at least give us the same choices Activision gave us. You guys at Firaxis don't want to be outdone by Activision do you? Better yet - give us Social Engineering, an endearing element of SMAC and far superior to CTP. |
JamesJKirk Prince Dixon, CA USA b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 04:52
 |
 |
 |  |
Well Fundamentalism ISN'T a type of government, that's why. It's merely an aspect of a government. I mean Iran is an Islamic Republic, Cromwelliam England was somewhat similar...There have been Fundamentalist Monarchies throughout history, did you ever hear of the divine right of kings, and even a few right out Theocracies. But most importantly, just because a nation bases it's code of laws on religious law doesn't automatically make it a crazed fanatic regime, it's nice to have those little stereotypes so we can see things in black and white, but that's just not how it is. But, I do definitely agree with you about the need for more future looking governments, as CTP had. [This message has been edited by JamesJKirk (edited May 06, 2001).] |
Sean Warlord Auckland, New Zealand. Jan 2001
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 05:51
 |
 |
 |  |
I won't miss her passing. But there should be a couple/few more government-type options.------------------ Give me Liberty, or give me death! |
ancient Chieftain Rochester, N.Y. (worst place in the world) May 2001
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 08:40
 |
 |
 |  |
i demand that socialism and communism be seperated, because they are different communism could be the new ideological government and socialist could be communism in civ2 which is pretty crappy. but how ever they could work it out so you could only become comunist after you become socialist for so many years, which would be a nice balancing effect and how the govt. is supposed to work out. |
JamesJKirk Prince Dixon, CA USA b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 13:42
 |
 |
 |  |
Just the same, Communism, as well as Socialism aren't really types of goverments, they're socioeconomic ideologies. As with Fundamentalism, you could have a communist monarchy, democracy, or dictatorship, or maybe even a futuristic govt where Communism is actually something like was described by Socialist writers and Utopians |
MrFun King United States, Iowa Nov 2000
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 14:57
|
 |
 |  |
I have an idea for an interesting government.How about ethnocracy?? An ethnocratic government basically gives democratic freedom and rights to one race or ethnic group while denying those same freedom and rights to other race or ethnic groups. ------------------ "I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, making exceptions to it -- where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man?" -- Abraham Lincoln's quote, and his anti-racist ideals |
Warm Beer Settler The bottom of the Bottle Jul 1999
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 15:49
  |
 |
 |  |
Ohh! That makes me so happy. I was never a big fan of fundamentalism (although I have been known to use it from time to time). For even a large empire with plenty of science improvements could compensate for the lack of science funding. Hmm, though it was mildly amusing to create an ungodly (pun intended) amout of fanatics and going 'jihad' on an opponent... ain't nothing like free cannon fodder.  ------------------ "When you have to shoot - shoot, don't talk." -Tuco Benedicto Juan Ramirez |
Imran Siddiqui ACS News Editor Deity b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 19:03
  |
 |
 |  |
I wonder though... will government selection be like Civ2/CtP or SMAC's Social Engineering (SE). I am personally pulling for SE, because then you can have a government type with different philosophy's. It'd be fun to play a Liberal (in the true sense of the word) Republic, or Socialist Dictatorship, etc. |
Saddam Warlord of the Republican gaurd Jan 2001
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 19:56
 |
 |
 |  |
Ahh yes no fundamentalism, but I hear there must be some sort of 'Religous Republic'. |
The_Aussie_Lurker Settler Adelaide, South Australia, Australia May 2001
|
 |
posted May 06, 2001 23:41
 |
 |
 |  |
Hi Everyone, Well, I can't say that I'll miss Fundamentalism (having replaced it with Fascism long ago!), but I hope that Firaxis completely revamps the government/SE model. I feel that a combination of both SE/Government types is best (ie. you have all the basic government types, with their set bonuses and limitations, but you can use SE to modify the governments "feel" to match your own tastes!). Like most people, I also feel that some more basic government types are needed (like those in CTP1 and 2), but most important of all is the need for greater Social Interaction (SI), which I believe was put forward by The Joker on an earlier civ III forum- with the concepts of factional support and Absolutity (both of which were great ideas). My reason for wanting more SI is so that I feel like my civilization contains real, thinking, people and not just automotons who yield to every dictate I make (like I felt in Civ II at times!) I'd especially like to see true-to-life representations of Civil War and Revolution. Anyway, sorry for the length of the post, but I've been waiting to say that for months!! From, The Aussie Lurker |
Roman Prince Bratislava, Slovakia Sep 2000
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 06:53
  |
 |
 |  |
Welcome to Apolyton, Aussie Lurker!  |
Russian King Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 08:51
  |
 |
 |  |
It doesnt matter to me whether fundy is gone, as long as its reallistic! I used commie more than fundy. better prod and science(and sumtimes gold.)and YES, FIRAXIS!!! You should change the WHOLE gov't system into something close to CTP! and make it a bit more modyfiable! |
Phalanx_TS Settler
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 09:38
 |
 |
 |  |
* screams in vain * damn nation my endless wall of fanatics !!! all gone !!! |
Pedrun Settler Natal, RN, Brazil May 2001
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 10:39
 |
 |
 |  |
The governments shoud be set with two characteristics (and not be a government right away). The Characteristics would be: 1 - Politics- The way the government rules(The civ start withall of this choices) and it could be: *Democratic Monarchy (Parlamentarism - like england today *Democratic Republic (Like most countries including USA) *Absolute Monarch (Like the Modern age states with onipotent kings) *Absolute Republic (Military Dictatorship - Like the ones that happened in the 1970s in Latin America) 2 - Economics- The ways of production,( must reseach it) it could be: *Subsistence- The tribal government based on family society (gentility comunity) the one you start with. no units *Slavism- A societ like the roman empire and greece. unit Slaver *Feudalism- Like the Medieval Europe. unit Cruzaders or Feudal Sir *Fundamentalism- Like in theocracies based on god's will. unit Cleric *Capitalism- Money is everithing like usa. unit ctp's Corporative Branch *Comunism- like the economy in URSS. unit Comunit Chief *Liberalism- big companies rules. unit Multinacional Company *Ambientalism- protect the enviromental. unit Pollution Cleaner And other economic choices could be created We could have governments like ................... + Subsistence - pre-historical govern Democratic Monarchy + Capitalism - England today Democratic republic + Slavism - Athens in the past Democratic republic + Capitalism - USA today Absolute Monarchy + Comunism - URSS Democratic Republic + Comunism - Marx Ideal government Absolute Monarchy + Feudalism - Medieval Europe ... There wouldnt be a government called Anarchy because it never existed (It sounds really stupidy a government that has no govern)
|
JamesJKirk Prince Dixon, CA USA b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 11:43
 |
 |
 |  |
Pedrun-A lot of stuff like that was mentioned in the pre-list era, but in more detail, but I don't see a point in having democratic monarchies, both becasue of the oxymorony of it (democracy-freedom and equality, monarchy-deep social hierarchy), and because in modern constitutional monarchies, the monarchs are there by tradition, and have no functional use whatsoever. Maybe a difference between Parliamentary and Presidential democracies would be worth trying out, but even then there are too few differences to matter, and what would you do about odd balls like France? Also, the military dictatorships that refered to themselves as Republics where by no means republics, they just called themselves that for their propaganda purposes, and got knows what else. okay, last qualm, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm bashing you or anything, because that's not my intent. But only under Stalin was the USSR really a dictatorship under one person, for much of the rest of its history, it was in essence a bureaucratic dictatorship, with much power resting in the politburo. Also, it's economic system was more akin to state-dominated capitalism than actual Communism. That's all, and keep up the postings! |
Pedrun Settler Natal, RN, Brazil May 2001
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 13:49
 |
 |
 |  |
I agree with you about the Democratic Monarchy its contradiction and the tradition-only of the royal family of england. I just wanted to make a logical path between absolute/democratic and monarchy/republic so i associate parliamentarism with it, a unhappy choice like you showed me. But i still keep the idea of Absolute Republic. where the government is restrict to one class. That happened in my country where there was president(indirect voted), senators and a constitution but that was restrict to militaries. And in Veneza or Polony before XIX where it was restrict to the arithocracy . Although thinking about it that is not going to change enough the gameplay to be considerate a political type. Living me with Monarchy, Republic and Parliamentarism. Despite all this i still keep the separation of the politics and economics characteristics (whatever the politics characteristics should be). |
TINOMan Settler Alberta Mar 2001
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 16:35
 |
 |
 |  |
I'm not happy about the losing of fundamentalism, but I understand their decision. When I played, I found that it could be an "easy way out", and it makes sense to abolish it. |
tniem Prince Grand Rapids Apr 2000
|
 |
posted May 07, 2001 16:58
 |
 |
 |  |
I still hope that S.E. is back from SMAC and in Civ III in an expanded format. There are just way too many governments today and in the history of the world to simply put them in strict subcategories like they have in the past. Force us to pick balanced elements of each government. I have always felt that to be the best solution. |
Matthew Prince Manhattan, Kansas . USA b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 08, 2001 01:42
  |
 |
 |  |
Aside from the riches availible to a fundamentalist government, the scientific restrictions were also unrealistic. The Islamic world kept science alive in the middle ages, and as reactionary as the Catholic Church was at times, it was also the sole bastion of learning in western Europe during the early middle ages. |
Father Beast Prince My head stuck permanently in my civ Feb 2000
|
 |
posted May 08, 2001 05:53
 |
 |
 |  |
quote:
 Originally posted by Phalanx_TS on 05-07-2001 09:38 AM * screams in vain * damn nation my endless wall of fanatics !!! all gone !!!
 |
I can appreciate that, but you can always play civ2, just like you can play civ1 if you want the settler cheat. with a combination of the settler cheat and the unlimited movement cheat, I could improve every square in 1 turn! now, I wonder if they'll do something about my armies of unlimited movement, unstoppable spies. When a civ attacks me, they all of a sudden discover their cities have no improvements, and are either in civil disorder or are size 1. there goes their unit support...  |
Alexander's Horse Emperor The former OT poster known as horse b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 08, 2001 06:18
|
 |
 |  |
The Horse Empire is innately fundamentalist  Our Religion is Horslam! Our war cry is Allah Horsebah! Our motto is There is no Horse but Horse! ------------------ Founder, Dear Leader and Great Helmsman of PROT -the People's Republic Off Topic www.delphi.com/prot1/ |
Roman Prince Bratislava, Slovakia Sep 2000
|
 |
posted May 08, 2001 06:56
  |
 |
 |  |
quote:
 Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 05-08-2001 06:18 AM The Horse Empire is innately fundamentalist Our Religion is Horslam! Our war cry is Allah Horsebah! Our motto is There is no Horse but Horse!

|
ROFLMAO  |
Anarcho Settler Chicago, Illinois, USA May 2001
|
 |
posted May 08, 2001 18:47
 |
 |
 |  |
Being a Libertarian, I think a good thing to replace Fundamentalism would be Minarchy. Or, even better, Anarcho-Capitalism! (if you're wondering what the hell i'm talking about and are bored, go to anarchism.net) Hey, maybe I'll make a mod . Also, I agree with some here that Fundamentalism only needs to be balanced, not annihalated. |
ancient Chieftain Rochester, N.Y. (worst place in the world) May 2001
|
 |
posted May 08, 2001 20:58
 |
 |
 |  |
actually communism isnt a form of govt because under communism the working class rules.. and everyone works for the good of the nation.. no one takes more than they need.. it is very idealistic.. and it is nothing like socialism which is a govternment and lives under govt. which is usually not idealistic but realistic.. but heres a idea i have the abiliaty to mix two or more govts to get a different govt. it would work and it could give you some weird mixes.. but none of them could be all positive cus the program would make sure negativs must be mxed in with positives.. heres a few mixes which we see in the world around us Democratic Republic - usa (since it isnt a true democracy) well couldnt think of more.. but i know theres more.. so if you wanted to you could go Democratic-Communist Mix Traits from Monarchy and republic and much much more..
|
tniem Prince Grand Rapids Apr 2000
|
 |
posted May 09, 2001 12:38
 |
 |
 |  |
quote:
 Originally posted by ancient on 05-08-2001 08:58 PM but heres a idea i have the abiliaty to mix two or more govts to get a different govt. it would work and it could give you some weird mixes.. but none of them could be all positive cus the program would make sure negativs must be mxed in with positives.. heres a few mixes which we see in the world around us Democratic Republic - usa (since it isnt a true democracy) well couldnt think of more.. but i know theres more.. so if you wanted to you could go Democratic-Communist Mix Traits from Monarchy and republic and much much more..
 |
Ancient, are you talking like the SMAC Social Engineering screen? |
St Leo Emperor Toronto, Ontario, Canada b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 09, 2001 16:06
  |
 |
 |  |
Aside from the riches availible to a fundamentalist government, the scientific restrictions were also unrealistic. The Islamic world kept science alive in the middle ages, and as reactionary as the Catholic Church was at times, it was also the sole bastion of learning in western Europe during the early middle ages.That's because they were not Fundies.  Some SE Ideas: Economy: Standard, Feudal, Mercantile, Laissez Faire Decision Making: Autocracy, Oligarchy, Representative, Direct Priorities: Stability, Wealth, Knowledge, Technology ------------------ Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo) http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/ petrazi@sprint.ca |
tniem Prince Grand Rapids Apr 2000
|
 |
posted May 09, 2001 17:50
 |
 |
 |  |
Since we are talking about social engineering screen, I have a suggestion that may or may not work.There has been a lot of talk about woman's suffrage, end of slavery, etc. Why can't a lot of these sweeping social changes happen in the social engineering screen? You would have to gain the research necessary to get them just like the rest of the S.E. choices, but on top of that there would be a large cost to them. There would be both positive and negatives to all of them. Ending slavery, minorities are happier but loss of cheap labor. Woman's suffrage leads to women in the workplace making them feel more independent but possibility of children to be less healthy (may be to controversial - not sure even I believe that). Any way I think this would add to the S.E. screen and be a perfect place to put these social choices. |
Admiral PJ Chieftain Southeast England , UK Dec 2000
|
 |
posted May 09, 2001 20:00
|
 |
 |  |
SMAC style Social engineering would be great, but it would be nice to also have defined Democracy/monarchy/communist/despot etc government types as the main SE choice perhaps,that dictate the major factors. Maybe whenever you change the full government you get to rearrange your SE choices for free with the new leader and administration (well.. they would already have had a revolution at least so its only fair)You should at least be able to see something about what the other civs Government/SE choices are. I wonder if communism would decrease culture levels too, and democracy could increase it.. culture could be a factor in SE manipulations. Admiral Pete |
SoulAssassin Settler Naperville, IL, USA Mar 2001
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 09:19
 |
 |
 |  |
I hope you guys know that you are arguing about symantics. There are many different ways to describe a form of government, and no two forms are identical. Most people would say that the US is a democracy, not true. George Moron Bush got put into power. I say put into power because Gore was elected.Fundamentalism is almost the same as Theocracy, which are both forms of Monarchy. All of you should take a political science course so you know what you're talking about, especially JamesJKirk. I hope that different governments offer different styles of play because in Civ, Civ2, CTP, CTP2, the gameplay didn't change when the government changed. On another note, I'd like to have the option of committing genocide in the game. It would add an interesting twist. Also, I'd like to see more frequent revolutions, such as America being formed from British colonies. And civil wars would be nice too. Also, there should be an option of assassinating a leader. That could throw a civilization into revolt. And I'd like to see the computers do that to the player. Even on diety, the game is too easy. [This message has been edited by SoulAssassin (edited May 10, 2001).] [This message has been edited by SoulAssassin (edited May 10, 2001).] |
SoulAssassin Settler Naperville, IL, USA Mar 2001
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 09:25
 |
 |
 |  |
Admiral PJ... communism didn't decrease Russian culture in any way, it just contained it internally. And Chinese culture isn't any less potent today because of the communist government. Culture seems to thrive under the most oppressive forms of government. Look at occupied Europe during WWII. The occupied peoples' culture didn't cease to exist or fade away, it actually kept the peoples hope up and helped people survive the Nazi occupation.And Democracy doesn't increase culture in any way. The United States has the weakest form of culture the world has ever seen, and it was the first true democracy. Democracy isn't the cause of the weak culture, its the mixture of different nationalities, the melting pot theory. I hope that the people at Firaxis know a lot more about aspects of civilization and culture than the people that post on these boards. [This message has been edited by SoulAssassin (edited May 10, 2001).] |
JamesJKirk Prince Dixon, CA USA b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 11:26
 |
 |
 |  |
quote:
 Originally posted by SoulAssassin on 05-10-2001 09:19 AMAll of you should take a political science course so you know what you're talking about, especially JamesJKirk.
 |
???????
Huh? No, really, what? I'm....sor....ry? |
HsFB King Phobos, Martian System Jan 2000
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 12:24
 |
 |
 |  |
Imran, can you think of ANY modern communist countries NOT a dictatorship?I'm for SE... |
JamesJKirk Prince Dixon, CA USA b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 13:23
 |
 |
 |  |
quote:
 Originally posted by HsFB on 05-10-2001 12:24 PM Imran, can you think of ANY modern communist countries NOT a dictatorship?I'm for SE...
 |
Can you think of any Communist countries that are truly communist? And w/o communist philosophies is it likely that we'd have the rights to organize into unions, worker protections laws, minimum wages, etc? Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't, being a civ person I'm sure you're interested in social sciences, and being interested in thus that should be one major thing to keep in mind!  |
Tseng Settler Kingston, Ontario, Canada. May 2001
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 13:54
|
 |
 |  |
Alot of you seem to like the SE model... and... alot of you seem to be comfortable with the old familiar model in Civ I/II. Why not have a combination of the two... sort of. Let me try to explain my idea... I picked up a book once (you may be able to find it at your library. Its called World Government. I forget alot of the other pertinent info, but its probably in the refence section, about the size of an Atlas), and it talked about and described, among other things, the different forms of government around the world. It divided it up by region, and gave the most detail on the major government in that region (ie, Canada, US, Mexico, Germany, France, UK, China, South Africa, frm USSR, [you get the point], got their own blurbs [with diagrams, which is the important part, i'll get to that later], and other nations got a little less coverage). Now, the important part is, the government systems that got the most coverage got the models, and the models really caught my eye. Besides the fact that they helped me understand the governments of different parts of the world better, the fact that they used a colourful and visually accomodating diagram made me think of Civ. Those diagrams could easily be incorporated into the game to literally allow the 'construction' of governmetn by players. It would be much better if you saw this for yourself, but I'll do my best to describe it... I'll use the example of the US government to illustrate first. On a white field, there was a green rectangular prism (picture a green pizza box, on its side) labelled "Electorate". From this box, there was an arrow pointing at... um, picture an orange pizza box lying flat, now, labeled "Congress". On this Congress pizza box, there were two red cubes, labeled "Senate", and "House of Representaives". Standing on top of the senate box, (as prez of the senate), was the Vice President, pictured as a little purple figure that looked like a person... sort of. The lines from the elctorate showed how the people elect, directly, their Senators and Reps (details were written on the arrows). More arrows showed the indirect relationship between the Electorate and the President, the Prez and Vice Prez, and the Prez and his cabinet, cabinaet and Senate, Prez and judiciary, and electorate and judiciary. You may think this is messy, but this was the first time I really understood how the American system works (in a technical sense). This is what was nice about these diagrams: they were very easy to understand. The flow charts were not messy. And this was for demonstrating a system with compartively more checks and balances than other nations. I found the communist systems of the USSR, Cuba and Angola more difficult to follow, however. The example of the United Kingdom had the elctorate, with an arrow to the House of Commons, who they elect. On the cube representing the Commons, was a cube representing the cabinet, showing that unlike in the US, where the cabinet's "cube" was removed from the congress, the British cabinet is responsible to the House. A line from the Queen (pictured as a person [just like the Prez, Vice Prez in US diagram, only with a crown], labelled monarch, with details indicating heditary system) to cabinet showed that the PM and cabinet (PM a little people figure, too, standing atop cabinet "cube") are appointed by the monarch, with support of the Commons. A line from PM and Monarch to House of Lords showed how some Lords are apointed by monarch on advice of PM, and the rest hereditary, etc. Now, let me explain how this could work in Civ, though you probably alrady made the conection... Early in the game, you would start out with just you, and possilble something that indicated influence from tribal warlords. As the game progressed, rather that 'discovering' forms of government, which is patently ridiculous, your civ would develop the components of government. Rather than discovering democracy, you would develop The Electorate, and be able to include that into your model/flow chart, for bonuses and drawbacks, similar to what is seen when you develop a new SE model or install a new gov't ala Civ I/II. How involve are the electorate? Are their representatives puppets, or can they in direct referenda, block your every move? How much influence does the military have? Do they have members in the Parliament, ready to 'gently influence' their civilian counterparts on the affairs of governing, as can be seen in the book's diagram for Libya, or is military kept a tarms length from gov't processes, with civilian oversight? Are you a one, two, multi or no party system? You can understand more of the possiblities if you read the book for yourself. The system could be set up so that you could select pre-set systems to avoid fiddling around with details and get that Civ I/II feeling, or add an embelishment here and there to get the SE feeling of SMAC. I encourage you to take a look at that book if you can find it. Besides having good ideas for improving the gov't model in Civ, it can help you get a more informed persective on the world's different forms of governement and short histories of these nations. |
SoulAssassin Settler Naperville, IL, USA Mar 2001
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 20:18
 |
 |
 |  |
Don't take offense to that Kirk, I just wanted to point out that it seems you're too worried about what a government is called rather than the ideology behind it.This discussion about governments is moot anyways because it really is a dictatorship. You, the player, control all aspects of the game. No matter what you call it, what advantages/disadvantages a certain Civ government type there are, its all a dictatorship. Maybe in Civ3, the people would decide certain things and take away control from the player. I'm not going to postulate on what the AI model would be like, but its something worth looking into. |
Sabre2th Warlord Ballston Spa, NY, USA Nov 2000
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 20:28
|
 |
 |  |
I trust that Sid and Firaxis will turn out a quality game ( ), with all the relevant governments. Even if they don't include what you want, it's certainly possible that we'll be able to modify the game to our liking. Sabre ------------------ "We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything." -Thomas A. Edison |
tniem Prince Grand Rapids Apr 2000
|
 |
posted May 10, 2001 21:50
 |
 |
 |  |
What I love about the Apolyton forum is that we can start a thread on the fact fundy is not in Civ III end up talking about communism and dictatorships, all the while having someone going at someone else about needing to take political science courses and finally the thread ends with the line "let's all just trust the all powerful Sid."It's quite refreshing that in the year I have been posting on Apolyton not a thing has changed.  [This message has been edited by tniem (edited May 10, 2001).] | |